A Supreme Court on the Brink (How about one in retreat from intellectual honesty? Megabarf!!!)

NY Times ^ | July 3, 2008 | Editorial

[neverdem]

In some ways, the Supreme Court term that just ended seems muddled: disturbing, highly conservative rulings on subjects like voting rights and gun control, along with important defenses of basic liberties in other areas, including the rights of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The key to understanding the term lies in the fragility of the court’s center. Some of the most important decisions came on 5-to-4 votes — a stark reminder that the court is just one justice away from solidifying a far-right majority that would do great damage to the Constitution and the rights of ordinary Americans.

The Supreme Court abandoned its special role in protecting voting rights when it rejected a challenge to Indiana’s harshly anti-democratic voter ID law. Critics warned that the law, which bars anyone without a government-issued photo ID from voting, would disenfranchise poor people, minorities and the elderly, all of whom disproportionately lack drivers’ licenses. The critics were right. In the Indiana presidential primary, shortly after the ruling, about 12 nuns in their 80s and 90s were turned away at the polls for not having acceptable ID.

In another sharp break with its traditions, the court struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. After seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is tied to raising a militia, the court reversed itself and ruled that it confers on individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for personal use. The decision will no doubt add significantly to the number of Americans killed by gun violence.

Corporations fared especially well in this term. The court reduced the punitive-damages award against Exxon Mobil for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill from $2.5 billion to about $500 million, a pittance for the energy company. In the process, the court...

[neverdem]

Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.

We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms” in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (’keepand bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for”bear Arms.”

[rabscuttle385]

Critics warned that the law, which bars anyone without a government-issued photo ID from voting, would disenfranchise poor people, minorities and the elderly, all of whom disproportionately lack drivers’ licenses.

It would also disenfranchise illegals except for the fact that they should not have been enfranchised to begin with.

[leprechaun9]

Does anyone really give a rsts a$$ what the Jason Blair Gazette has to say about anything?

[Paladin2]

"basic liberties"

WTF? Liberties for Islamofaschists who have NO respect for the Constitution?

[Paladin2]

I’ve heard of people carrying bear claws, but not typically bear arms.

[Paladin2]

Maybe it’s a typo and should read bare arms?

[kevkrom]

The critics were right. In the Indiana presidential primary, shortly after the ruling, about 12 nuns in their 80s and 90s were turned away at the polls for not having acceptable ID.

Wasn't this exposed as a stunt? The nuns in question had every chance to get free government ID but chose not to, as I recall.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Right out of the gate, they contrast the “disturbing” 2A ruling with “important defenses of basic liberties in other areas.”
Let’s just not read The New York Bird Cage Liner anymore.

[Edgerunner]

More of the same from the irrelevant...

[VeniVidiVici]

disturbing, highly conservative rulings on subjects like voting rights and gun control,

That damn Constitution is so disturbing.

Obviously Scalia and Ginsberg are voting partisan as they previously thought bearing arms was a private "right". Thanks for the quote.

[Dilbert San Diego]

I don’t like how they twist words around. They warn that women’s reproductive freedom will be curtailed if more conservatives are appointed to the court.

Women have reproductive freedom. Women have the right to have children. Women have the right to any birth control services they want. That includes abortion rights, and even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, there would be no change to other birth control services. And even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, abortion rights would then become a state issue again. Liberal states would still allow it, while more socially conservatives states would pass laws to put more restrictions on it. But none of this has anything to do wtih “reproductive freedom”. Gee you would swear that chastity belts are going to be required if another conservative were on the Supreme Court.

[Las Vegas Ron]

The Supreme Court abandoned its special role in protecting voting rights....

Gotta love libs. Colossal jewels of glittering ignorance (credit Rush)

[Sender]

...a far-right majority that would do great damage to the Constitution and the rights of ordinary Americans

LOL, are we playing Sadie Hawkins here?

[HoosierHawk]

I just love the NY Times editorial page. It's entertaining.

I've got it bookmarked. "Let's see what the Times is whining about today?"

[bobsatwork]

Well, there you have it: it’s all about “conservative” on one side, and “basic liberties” on the other. And people claim bias at the Times?

[darkangel82]

They want constitutional rights only for themselves and no one else.

[neverdem]

Women have reproductive freedom. Women have the right to have children. Women have the right to any birth control services they want. That includes abortion rights, and even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, there would be no change to other birth control services. And even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, abortion rights would then become a state issue again. Liberal states would still allow it, while more socially conservatives states would pass laws to put more restrictions on it. But none of this has anything to do wtih “reproductive freedom”. Gee you would swear that chastity belts are going to be required if another conservative were on the Supreme Court.

When a fetus is a patient

[chris_bdba]

Damage to the Constitution? What is this writer smoking? The only damage a conservative supreme court will do is to the liberal fantasy that they can change anything they want by Judicial fiat.

[Tanniker Smith]

Corporations fared especially well in this term.

Particularly the corporation that wants to throw minorities out of their homes in Brooklyn (and make it impossible to live near there for the rest), so a new sports complex can be built for the Knicks, which will bring in more Tax Revenue!

Never thought I'd see the day when the Left was in the pocket of Big Corporations, displacing the little guy, so that the Evil Corporations can make a profit and turn it over to the libs who can dole it out to the folks that they displaced in the first place!

[B4Ranch]

Liberal women want the right to kill their babies because of their sloppy sex habits. Their sloppy sex habits have everything to do with reproductive freedom.

[Sgt_Schultze]

After seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is tied to raising a militia

Meaning that for the Sixteen preceding decades that wasn't the case. Why isn't the nyt upset about the court seven decades ago that determined something never believed at the time of ratification?

[smoketree]

The nyt even got Miller wrong.
Miller did not say the 2d was about serving in a militia it said they weren’t sure a sawed off shotgun was a proper militia weapon.
but that’s what the lib’s do. They see what they want to see and project everything else onto someone else.

[rhema]

[supercat]

Miller did not say the 2d was about serving in a militia it said they weren’t sure a sawed off shotgun was a proper militia weapon.

Did Heller et al. in their briefs, or Scalia in his decision, mention that Miller et al. were never convicted? The bottom line on Miller was "Reversed and Remanded". The USSC didn't say that a sawed-off shotgun wasn't a proper militia weapon, but merely that Miller et al. would have to introduce some evidence if they wanted to claim that it was.

[smoketree]

Exactly.
Since Miller was dead there was no defense.
But even so the question was not about service in a militia it was whether the particular weapon was a militia type weapon.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the toon!

[supercat]

Since Miller was dead there was no defense.

Miller's co-defendant Layton was very much alive. Since he was not under indictment when U.S. v. Miller was heard, he could not demand that the government provide for his defense. Had Layton not acquiesced to a plea bargain which avoided prison time, the procedural issues would have been very interesting(*). IMHO, the plea bargain should be viewed as an admission by the government that they would have lost, but write-ups of U.S. v. Miller never mention that.

(*) Generally, a defendant is required to raise issues at the first opportunity; failure to raise an issue in timely fashion may prevent one from raising it later. IMHO this rule is enforced too strictly, particularly in cases involving indigent defendants, but there are sound reasons behind it.

Had Layton decided to hire a lawyer after he was re-indicted, it's unclear whether Layton's failure to challenge certain aspects of the government's SCOTUS case would have been held against him later. My understanding of normal procedures is that it probably would be, but it wouldn't seem just to require a person to defend himself when he is not even under indictment, and to forbid him from defending himself in any way that he could have done but did not.

[wastedyears]

***a stark reminder that the court is just one justice away from solidifying a far-right majority that would do great damage to the Constitution and the rights of ordinary Americans.***

Should’ve put a super-duper lobster-bib porcelain-hugging barf alert.